9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Bengaluru upholding the Assessment Order dated 26/02/2015 passed by the learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 5 (3) (3), Bengaluru for the assessment year 2012-13 without giving sufficient time to appear before him for a personal hearing to the appellant or to the authorised representative even though an adjournment letter was submitted to the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Bengaluru on 27/02/2018 and an acknowledgment was obtained requesting an adjournment for the personal hearing to 28/02/2018. The case was not a time barring one and there was no urgency or haste to complete the order quoting the case of Honourable Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Multiplan India Limited reported in 38 ITD 320 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... khs on account of unexplained investments relating to the house building at 10, Shub Enclave, Haralur Road, Kasavana halli, Bangalore in which the building was constructed during the following financial year 2013-14. For the above and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the appellant prays that the appeal be allowed and justice rendered." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is having income from salary, house property, capital gains and income from other sources and filed the Return of income on 28/7/2012 and subsequently filed the Revised return on 14/3/2013 with total income of Rs. 15,64,990/-. The Return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said dates and dismissed the appeal in limine by applying the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. (37 ITD 320). 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the learned AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution as the assessee has filed adjournment petition and could not attend the case for various reasons and further there is no adjudication of case on merits and prayed for one more opportunity be provided before the CIT(A) to represent the case. Contra, the learned DR objected to the submissions of the learned AR as the assessee was provided sufficient opportunities for hearing before the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otices on various dates in appellate proceedings and the assessee chose not to appear which cannot be overlooked. Therefore, we are of the substantive opinion that the assessee should be provided an opportunity of hearing but with payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Income-tax Department within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to the payment of above cost, we restore the entire disputed issue to the file of the CIT(A) to consider the matter afresh and adjudicate on merits. Further, the assessee shall submit proof of payment of cost through challan copy with Tribunal and appellate authority. It is nevertheless to mention that the CIT(A) should provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee to file evid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
